|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 381 Records
-
2012 (1) TMI 348 - ITAT, COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... sment, after expiry of four years is invalid in law. In this case also admittedly, the assessment was reopened after expiry of four years. In view of the above, in our opinion, the was no negligence on the part of the assessee in disclosing full material which is relevant for completing the assessment. Therefore, in view of Proviso to section 147, the reopening of assessment after four years is invalid in law. Accordingly we hold that the reopening of assessment is invalid. Consequently the reassessment proceedings has no leg to stand. Accordingly we uphold the order of Commissioner of Income-tax(A) for the reasons stated above. 6. In view o the above, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to go into the merit of the appeal filed by the department. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 347 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Act. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable. 4. The Revenue submitted that Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Beauty Dyers (supra) held that the assessees are liable to pay duty of excise under Section 3 of the Act or under any other provisions contemplated for the same. 5. In view of the above decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court, where the Hon ble High Court held that the rules under which the present demand is made are held to be ultra wires and held that the assessee is liable to pay duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under any other provisions of law. 6. In view of the above decision the impugned order is set aside after waiving the condition pre-deposit of the dues and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh in view of the Hon ble Madras High Court s decision in the case of Beauty Dyers (supra) after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. 7. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2012 (1) TMI 346 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ong term capital gain. Though it is an established rule that ignorance of law is not an excuse, but in the facts of the present case, where the assessee had bonafidely acted on the advice of his counsel in respect of issue of claim of exemption under particular provisions of the Act and which are at variance even under the same chapter, where the assessee had so acted, the claim of the assessee can at best be called a bonafide mistake. There is no merit in levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of such bonafide mistake made by the assessee, which was not malafide. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is not exigible to levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the aforesaid penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus allowed. 10.In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of January,2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 345 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion. By virtue of clause (f) and (ii) to Explanation 1, the Assessing Officer could not have reworked the depreciation computed by the respondent assessee in the books of accounts maintained under the Companies Act, 1956. 9. It may be noted here that the only addition made by the Assessing Officer in the present case was on account of change of method of depreciation from straight line method, which was the method adopted by the respondent assessee in the books of accounts maintained under the Companies Act, 1956. The Assessing Officer adopted and applied the written down value method, which is the method specified under Section 32 of the Act. This is not permissible in view of the limited mandate and stipulation in Explanation 1. 10. In view of the aforesaid position, we have to hold that the order passed by the tribunal does not require interference and accordingly we do not think any substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
-
2012 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the parties. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants on the question of stay with regard to the arrears of service tax due from each of the appellants as on 31st December, 2011, we direct that on appellants’ clearing all the arrears as on the said date in three equated instalments, on or before 29th February, 2012; 30th April, 2012 and 30th June, 2012, no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellants for the recovery of the said arrears. However, in the event of default on the part of the appellants in deposit of any one of the instalments by the due date, it will be open to the respondents to recover the entire amount in arrears forthwith. We clarify that there is no stay of imposition of service tax under sub-clause (zzzz) of clause (105) of Section 65 read with Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 (as amended), insofar as the future liability towards service tax with effect from 1st January, 2012 is concerned. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 8390 of 2011.
-
2012 (1) TMI 343 - ITAT PUNE
Denied benefit of the provisions of the proviso to section 92C(2) - Held that:- This is not in accordance with the pronounced decisions of various Benches including that of Pune. In effect, the demand relatable to this issue becomes clearly irrecoverable demand. We have also considered assessee's readiness to pay some tax and on considering assessee's capacity to pay and the requirements of Government of India, we are of the opinion that the assessee must pay 50% of the clear disputed demand (after excluding the demand related to the 5% plus or minus and also excluding the statutory interest segment thereof) which may be somewhere around ₹ 2 crores.
Thus, the assessee is required to pay sum of ₹ 1 crore now for becoming entitled to the stay of demand conditionally. Considering the difficulties narrated by the learned counsel to pay the said demand in one go, we direct the assessee to pay the same in five equal monthly instalments. The first instalment should be paid at the end of this month i.e. January, 2012. We also consider the assessee's request for early hearing and the same is acceded to. Thus the case is posted for hearing on 23rd February, 2012 as pronounced in the open Court.
-
2012 (1) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of application for amending a pleading subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and that the parties had sufficient knowledge of other's case. It also helps checking the delays in filing the applications. vide Aniglase Yohannan v. Ramlatha and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 534, Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and Anr. v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Ors. Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand (2008) 5 SCC 117, Rajkumar Guraward (Dead) through LRS. v. S.K. Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and Anr. (2008) 14 SCC 364, Vidyabai and Ors. v. Padmalatha and Anr. (2009) 2 SCC 409, Man Kaur (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Hartar Singh Sangha (2010) 10 SCC 512. 17. In the light of the above discussion, we are in entire agreement with the conclusion arrived by the Trial Court and unable to accept the reasoning of the High Court. Accordingly, the order dated 08.02.2011 passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 5162 is set aside. 18. The civil appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (1) TMI 341 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ch the assessee is operating and the Revenue is having enough safeguard to make such examination from year to year at the time of assessment. Any contravention of the provision in future can well be considered in assessment proceedings. 8. Therefore, while the eligibility of the assessee for registration under sec.12AA is examined in the light of declared objects of the assessee-society, we find no reason why registration should not be granted. In the light of the judicial pronouncements discussed above, we find that the assesseesociety is entitled for the registration under sec.12AA. 9. The Director (Exemptions) is accordingly, directed to grant registration to the assessee-society under sec.12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 10. As the appeal of the assessee is disposed of, the stay petition becomes infructuous and therefore liable to be rejected. 11. In result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 11th of January, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (1) TMI 340 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 48 46) (2001) 2 SCC 247 47) (1993) 3 SCC 288 48) (1944) KB 718 49) (1941) 2 All ER 11 50) AIR 1962 SC 83 51) (1989)1 SCC 101 52) AIR 1967 SC 1480 53) (2009) 6 SCC 379 54) (2004) 13 SCC 217 55) AIR 2003 Calcutta 96 56) (1996) 6 SCC 44 57) (2006) 1 SCC 275 58) (2005) 6 SCC 404 59) (1901) AC 495 60) (2002) 4 SCC 638 61) (1972) 2 WLR 537 62) (1991) 3 SCC 655 63) 2004(8) SCC 579 64) Full Bench Judgment in TRC Nos.274 of 2001 and batch dated 25.11.2011 65) (2000)5 SCC 365 66) 2010(2) ALT 777 67) (2007) 13 SCC 53 68) (2007) 10 SCC 635 69) (2008) 14 SCC 58 70) (2010) 11 SCC 374 71) Judgment in Civil Appeal No.3726 of 2011 dated 26.7.2011 72) 1952 SCR 612 73) (1947) FCR 141 74) AIR 1970 SC 1102 75) AIR 1964 SC 1823 76) (1955) 1 SCR 1011 77) 1999(6) ALD 63 (DB) 78) AIR 1970 SC 1118 79) AIR 1961 SC 221 80) AIR 1995 SC 1512 81) AIR 1974 SC 2192 82) AIR 1970 SC 679 83) (1975)1 WLR 1661 84) AIR 2000 SC 1976 85) AIR 1969 SC 430 86) AIR 1989 SC 1681 87) AIR 1967 SC 1753 88) (1993) 2 SC 2444
-
2012 (1) TMI 338 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the said Poem. Even if there is no reference to the respondent in the said Poem, amendment of the complaint was allowed by the Magistrate even before taking cognizance of the case. If the amendment is not allowed, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Since the amendment sought for by the respondent was allowed even before taking cognizance of the case, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, The petitioner may raise the above contentions at the time of final hearing of the case. 13. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in permitting the respondent to amend the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. even before taking cognizance of the case, after considering the sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses. Therefore, there are no valid grounds to quash the order dated 21.06.2007 in PCR No. 8409/2007 registered as C.C. No. 15851/2007 pending no the file of VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The petition is therefore dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 337 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ty of grapes is black grapes and they were claimed to have been sold as it is. The selling rate of said variety is shown in the range of ₹ 77.50 to ₹ 93 per kg., as against ₹ 15/- stated by APMC. In view of the above, we are of the view that the accounts maintained by the assessee for agricultural activities suffer from certain defects. Accordingly, in our view, the agricultural income declared by the assessee deserves reduction. On a conspectus of the matter, we are of the view that the agricultural income derived from grapes may be reduced by ₹ 8.00 lakhs to take care of the defects and in our view the same would meet the ends of justice. We modify the order of Ld CIT(A) accordingly and the AO is directed to consider ₹ 8.00 lakhs as income under the head “Income from other sources” out of the agricultural income declared by the assessee. 6. In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on
-
2012 (1) TMI 336 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... always be entertained in appellate proceedings. Pitted against the cause of substantial justice vis-à-vis technical considerations, the cause of substantial justice should prevail It is true that scope of appellate jurisdiction is confined to the issues arising out of impugned order, but if a legal issue comes into operation at appellate proceedings stage only, for which no fresh scrutiny of facts is required, then the legal claim can be entertained by appellate authority particularly, when he has co- terminous powers with the authority passing the impugned order. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and allow the ground no.2 raised by the assessee. 8. The other grounds raised by the assessee before us are on merit and, therefore, need no adjudication as the entire income earned by assessee was exempt from tax. 9. In the result , the appeal of the asses see is al lowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/01/2012
-
2012 (1) TMI 335 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s accordingly proceeded ex-parte. Let an affidavit by way of evidence be filed by the plaintiffs within eight weeks from today. List before the Joint Registrar for plaintiffs? evidence on 29th March, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 334 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... expenses incurred by it, the BDA or any other agency/instrumentality of the State. 68. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petitions filed by the respondents are dismissed subject to the direction that within three months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this judgment, the State Government shall take appropriate decision in the context of communication dated 03.05.2005. Within this period, the State Government shall also decide whether the levy of supervision charges, improvement charges, examination charges, slum clearance development charges and MRTS cess at the rates specified in the communications of the BDA was excessive. The decision of the State Government should be communicated to the respondents within next four weeks. If any of the respondents feel aggrieved by the decision of the State Government then it shall be free to avail appropriate legal remedy. The parties shall bear their respective costs.
-
2012 (1) TMI 333 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ndings recorded by the adjudicating officer in the impugned order. 4. It was then argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that under similar facts and circumstances relating to the same transaction in relation to two other group entities namely, Hem Kanak Mercantile Private Limited (Appeal no. 171 of 2009 decided on 11.3.2010) and Samradha Finstock Pvt. Ltd. (Appeal no. 204 of 2010 decided on 28.2.2011) this Tribunal had reduced the penalty to ₹ 7 lacs. We have seen the earlier orders. The transactions are the same and the entities involved are also group entities. The case of the appellant is identical to the two cases referred to above. The appellant, therefore, cannot be given a different treatment. We, therefore, reduce the penalty to ₹ 7 lacs in this case. In the result, while upholding the findings of the adjudicating officer, we reduce the penalty to ₹ 7 lacs. The impugned order stands modified accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (1) TMI 332 - SUPREME COURT
Arbitration agreement - Jurisdiction of District Forums on Quality of seeds - commercial production of the seeds - farmers/growers 'consumer' u/s 2(d) of the Consumer Act - awarded compensation - Appellant - M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (NSCL) is a Government of India company. Its main functions are to arrange for production of quality seeds of different varieties in the farms of registered growers and supply the same to the farmers. The Respondents own lands in different districts and are engaged in agriculture/seed production. They filed complaints with the allegation that they had suffered loss due to failure of the crops/less yield because the seeds sold/supplied by the Appellant were defective.
HELD THAT:- the farmers/growers purchased seeds by paying a price to the Appellant, they would certainly fall within the ambit of Section 2(d)(i) of the Consumer Act and there is no reason to deny them the remedies which are available to other consumers of goods and services. there is nothing in the Seeds Act and the Rules which may give an indication that the provisions of the Consumer Act are not available to the farmers who are covered under 'consumer'. As a matter of fact, any attempt to exclude the farmers from the ambit of the Consumer Act by implication will make that Act vulnerable to an attack of unconstitutionality on the ground of discrimination.
The seeds sown under the supervision of the expert deputed by the Appellant. The entire crop was to be purchased by the Appellant. The agreements entered into between the Appellant and the growers clearly postulated supply of the foundation seeds by the Appellant with an assurance that the crop will be purchased by it. It is neither the pleaded case of the Appellant nor any evidence was produced before any of the Consumer Forums that the growers had the freedom to sell the seeds in the open market or to any person other than the Appellant. Therefore, it is not possible to take the view that the growers had purchased the seeds for resale or for any commercial purpose and they are excluded from the definition of the term 'consumer'. As a matter of fact, the evidence brought on record shows that the growers had agreed to produce seeds on behalf of the Appellant for the purpose of earning their livelihood by using their skills and labour.
After examining the reports the District Forums felt satisfied that the seeds were defective and this is the reason why the complainants were not called upon to provide samples of the seeds for getting the same analysed/tested in an appropriate laboratory. the procedure adopted by the District Forum was in no way contrary to Section 13 of the Consumer Act and the Appellant cannot seek annulment of well-reasoned orders passed by three Consumer Forums on the specious ground that the procedure prescribed under Section 13 of the Consumer Act had not been followed.
In the result, the appeals are dismissed. The Appellant shall pay cost of ₹ 25,000/- to each of the Respondents. The amount of cost shall be paid within a period of 60 days from today.
-
2012 (1) TMI 331 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rsquo;s contributions to premium disallowed in years of payment on ground that Assessee had control over disposal of funds - Amendment of Rules of Plan leaving no control with Assessee and making amounts due under Policies payable to employees - Amounts earlier disallowed - Allowable in year in which Amendment was effected as outgoing of that year - Indian Income Tax Act 1922, s.10(2)(xv), (4)(c ).” Both the cases can be applied to hold that the liability which was sought to be discharged by taking insurance policy and the premium having been paid in this regard, the premium payable/paid is eligible for deduction while computing the income from business. We, therefore, delete the disallowance of ₹ 1,10,00,000/-.” 3.1 Following the aforesaid decision, it is held that the assessee was entitled to deduct the amount of ₹ 30 lakh in computing its total income. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 5. Pronounced in the Open Court on 11th January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 330 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... same afresh in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal (supra) and according to law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds taken by the Revenue are, therefore, partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.5029/Mum/2007 7. At the time of hearing, both the parties have agreed that the facts of the present case and ground taken by the Revenue are similar to the case of Mrs.Deepali J Shah, therefore, the plea taken by them in the said appeal may be considered while deciding the present appeal. 8. That being so and in the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the parties, we direct the AO to follow our findings recorded in paragraph 6 of this order. We hold and order accordingly. The grounds taken by the Revenue are, therefore, partly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, both the appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th Jan., 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 329 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... te order rejecting the assessee’s contention in this regard. Following the view taken hereinabove, we decide this issue against the assessee. 3. The other appeal is for A.Y. 2003-04 which has been filed by the Revenue arising out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 15-01-2007. 4. It is common submission from both the sides that apart from filing this appeal in ITA No.2642/Mum/2007, the Revenue also filed another appeal which has been marked as ITA No.2702/Mum/2007 with identical grounds and from the same order of ld. CIT(A). In other words, it was accepted that it is a duplicate appeal having been filed by the Revenue. Since the other appeal is already pending adjudication, there is no point in keeping both the appeals alive. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal as having been filed in duplicate. 5. In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2003-04 is dismissed and that for assessment year 2002-03 is partly allowed. Order pronounced on the 18th day of January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 328 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tent cover which is per -se inflammatory, unacceptable by any set of community standards; seeks to create enmity, hatred and communal violence against amongst any religious communities; in demeaning, degrading and obscene and will corrupt minds and will affect the religious sentiments of public at large. Ld . App on the other hand submits that there is no discrepancy in the order passed by the ld. Magistrate. He has perused all the records and there are objectionable materials which are available in sealed cover on the judicial file. He has further submitted that before passing any order, trial court record may be summoned. Therefore , on the oral submission, the State is impleaded as respondent no. 2. Petitioner shall file the amended memo of parties in due course. During the course of the day, petitioner shall supply the copy of the paper book to the ld. Counsel appearing from the opposite side. Trial Court record be summoned by special messenger. Re -notify on 12.01.2012.
........
|
